Ju-87G Stuka

[Furio]

Original topic’s thread has been largely stolen, with my contribution, so some apologize are needed. However, I’ve read many interesting posts, including those I disagree with, and I must thank everyone for sharing their thoughts, and ask for everyone’s patience, as I’m going for another round.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

There were quite a lot of soldiers fighting in all WW2. So I would not say it defies the rules of probability. Say among all these million soldiers there were a few thousand as talented as Rudel, that could be right couldn't it?. And then just say that among ten thousand soldiers there was one that was as lucky not getting killed as he was -could be right? -Then just because you have that many soldiers fighting, you will have a reasonable probability to get one to a few Rudel.

As I understand it, probability doesn’t work this way, but in the opposite direction. There’s not any law requiring Rudel as the final outcome. In other words, it’s not like a National Lottery where, as thin as the winning chances are, a number is ultimately drawn. A war can be – and most probably is – fought without any single soldier reaching such mythical results.
We are talking of people that risked their life with each sortie, and each time faced no small probability of being killed. Regardless of your magic evasive manoeuvres, how many times you can evade anti-aircraft fire and enemy fighters? If your plane is hit, how many times bullets and shells can pierce wings, fuel tanks and fuselage, leaving you alive? If your plane is shot down, how many times can you bail out or land in the field without crashing with fatal result, or without being captured?
2.500 missions and 30 times shot down are the numbers declared by Rudel. To put it simply, I consider them unbelievable, period. Logbooks and documents are falsifiable for propaganda purpose.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

And Germany would have lost the war with ten thousand Rudels. Biting off more than you can chew is always a bad idea, and they tried to bite with the mouth still full.

Here I disagree, and I think numbers disagree also. If we take for good Rudel’s victory tally, just 240 of Rudel-type men would have destroyed 124,560 tanks, more that the total built in Russia during the whole war. Now, let’s divide Rudel’s efficiency by a factor of ten, for a victory tally of 50 destroyed tanks each. Just 2.491 pilots would have been enough to obtain the same result. If we consider that Russian tanks faced also many other dangers, mainly German panzers, jagdpanzers and 88 mm. guns, a much lower kill number was needed to win the war. It’s just a guess, but 25,000 destroyed tanks could have been more than enough to change history. And to obtain that result just 500 pilots, each one with one tenth of Rudel’s victory tally, are needed.
Play a little with different numbers, if you like, but the picture doesn’t change that much and, Rudel apart, says something about anti-tank weapons efficiency.

[RPS69]

Furio, what you are doing is very similar to some religious man, that was very upset with some enlightnend frenchman that demonstrated God's non-existance.
In revenge, he demonstrated Napoleon non-existance while he was still alive. To the point that he confirmed the truth of his thesis after knowing Napoleon's death, stating that before demonstrating his thesis was wrong, they preferred to kill Napoleon, so to not have the need to counter demonstrate nothing...

Statistics could always be arranged on a convenient way, to afirm whatever you want.

But while Majorfailure stement was on the uniqueness side, you tried the reciprocate, and that is always a false condition, at least using the same simplification.

Nazi Germany never build so many Ju87, and Hs129 to generate so many Rudells. So if you want to extrapolate for the number built, there was only one Rudell, so to have 2500 Rudell's, you need to multiply the actual number of each type flown by Rudell, for the number of aircraft and attack pilots available. This number would be higher than the whole availability of aircraft on aviation history!

[Pursuivant]

Furio has a point in that Rudel was at least partially a creation of Nazi propaganda. And, his kill claims might have been inflated, either for propaganda reasons or just due to "fog of war."

Are there non-biased, post-WW2 analyses of Rudel's war record?

My guess is that there's probably a lot of truth to the legend, but I'm not going to take Rudel's word for all of it. In particular, his kill claims for ground vehicles might be badly overstated.

RPS69 makes a great point that the Stuka G was a very rare bird. Certainly it was a specialist's tool, introduced at a time when Germany was rapidly running to out of qualified combat pilots.

When we can create missions with hundreds of aircraft of the same type with a few button clicks we can forget how scarce some planes actually were.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Furio, what you are doing is very similar to some religious man, that was very upset with some enlightnend frenchman that demonstrated God's non-existance.
In revenge, he demonstrated Napoleon non-existance while he was still alive. To the point that he confirmed the truth of his thesis after knowing Napoleon's death, stating that before demonstrating his thesis was wrong, they preferred to kill Napoleon, so to not have the need to counter demonstrate nothing...

RPS, the story about Napoleon is interesting and funny, and says a lot about the times we live in. That said, my English must be very bad, if an exercise in scepticism gives the feeling of a religious zealot. In any case, I don’t take lightly people’s feelings, so let me say something that should be obvious: I respect everyone’s opinion, no matter how much I disagree, and I never duel intentionally with anyone. I’ve read many interesting points in this thread, food for thoughts and incentive for research. I thank again everyone for this, Majorfailure included.

Originally Posted by RPS69

Statistics could always be arranged on a convenient way, to afirm whatever you want.

I disagree. To demonstrate whatever you want you need to falsify numbers, and I didn’t do that. Moreover, I didn’t use complicate statistic methods or tricks, just simple, elementary math. And I never talked about 2,500 Rudels unleashed on Earth, a frightening thought!
Perhaps I was unclear, perhaps there’s something wrong in my reasoning, so it’s wiser to take a fresh start. We have these numbers.
2,500 missions claimed by Rudel.
30 times shot down, as above.
519 tank kills, as above.
Now we need the approximate number of tanks fielded by Russia. As usual, the net gives a lot of different numbers. Somewhere I found 124,560 tanks produced by Soviet Union from January 41 to December 45. Some should be subtracted, being built after war’s end, but lend lease tanks should be added. I propose the estimate number below.
130,000 tanks fielded by Soviet Union during the war.
Some simple math gives us these results.
251 Rudels would have destroyed all 130,000 tanks.
231 Rudels if the tanks were 120,000.
192 Rudels if the tanks were 100,000, and so on.
Russian tanks suffered losses from German panzers, jagd-panzers and antitank guns. On top of these, how many tanks needed to be destroyed by air attack alone for Germany to win the war?
48 Rudels would have destroyed 25,000 tanks (48.1 Rudels, to be precise).
19 Rudels would have destroyed 10,000 tanks (19.2 Rudels, to be precise).
My guess is that 10,000 tanks, all destroyed on the battlefield or in the vicinity, would have been more than enough. A first conclusion can be drawn: not Rudel alone, but a small number of his peers would have changed the course of history.
Let us make a further step, and consider less formidable pilots and comparing them to the above numbers. We consider pilots with a victory tally of 50 kill each (a little less than one tenth of Rudel’s claims).
500 “one-tenth Rudels” would have destroyed 25,000 tanks.
200 “one-tenth Rudels” would have destroyed 10,000 tanks.
A second conclusion can be drawn: a relatively small (500 at most, 200 more probably) number of “one-tenth-Rudels” would have changed the course of history.

From the above numbers, if reasonably correct, I draw my own conclusion: Rudel was a braggart. The real value of anti-tank planes (and other anti-tank weapons) was modest.

Returning to facts and numbers, let’s consider the 2,500 combat missions flown by Rudel. If I remember correctly, USAAF Eight Air Force retired crews after 25 missions, to afford them fair survival chances. Certainly USAAF was conservative, but Rudel claimed to have flown 100 times these 25 missions. Even quadrupling the American limit to 100 missions, Rudel claimed 25 times that number. Just think about how risky Eight Air Force missions were, multiply that risk 25 times and you end up with Rudel’s career.

From the above numbers, if reasonably correct, I draw my own conclusion: Rudel was a braggart. In reality, he flew fewer missions, or most of these had no risk at all.

30 times shot down. I know that Rudel was severely wounded and lost a leg, but just think a little at this number. Try to hit an airplane for 30 times with bullets and shells, always leaving the pilot alive. Pilots apart, for 30 times the plane receive fatal damage: one time the engine is stopped, another the fuel tank sets on fire or explode, control linkages are severed, wings or tail are shot away, and each time the pilot bail out or crashland successfully, and always comes out alive and is never captured.
There’s no need for statistical analysis here.

Conclusion, I’m not saying that Rudel didn’t exist, but that he was a braggart. I went a little off talking about falsified documents. This is not necessary. Just in case, I say it again: all the above is my opinion, and I’m smiling, not grinding my teeth.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Furio

Returning to facts and numbers, let’s consider the 2,500 combat missions flown by Rudel. If I remember correctly, USAAF Eight Air Force retired crews after 25 missions, to afford them fair survival chances. Certainly USAAF was conservative, but Rudel claimed to have flown 100 times these 25 missions. Even quadrupling the American limit to 100 missions, Rudel claimed 25 times that number. Just think about how risky Eight Air Force missions were, multiply that risk 25 times and you end up with Rudel’s career.

The USAAF had replacement pilots which put them in the comfortable position to come up with the tour of duty system.
The Germans on the other hand did not - their tour of duty was over with their death/capture.
Most Germans aces had flown a ridiculous amount of missions till they were shot down and killed.
Most German aces actually were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nd_attack_aces

or most of his missions had very low risk, or no risk at all.

In "Stuka Pilot" he never claimed his missions were super risky iirc.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by swiss

The USAAF had replacement pilots which put them in the comfortable position to come up with the tour of duty system.
The Germans on the other hand did not - their tour of duty was over with their death/capture.
Most Germans aces had flown a ridiculous amount of missions till they were shot down and killed.
Most German aces actually were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nd_attack_aces



In "Stuka Pilot" he never claimed his missions were super risky iirc.

This is a well-known fact. It should be considered that USAAF calculated the risk for a loss rate of around 5%, considering 10% a prohibitive limit, and the 25 missions mark was not easy to reach.
The only explanation I can think of is different duration of missions. Fortresses and Liberators flew for hours over enemy held territory, while a Stuka based near frontline could possibly complete a mission in a matter of minutes, facing, however, a much more dangerous anti-aircraft fire at low level.
Be it as it may, the Wikipedia list is interesting. There is one pilot that possibly reached half Rudel’s missions (approximately 1,300), a small group under the half limit and the rest down to a third or less. Claimed tank kills are much lower, around one-sixth on average, with just one approaching one quarter. It would be interesting to see the rest of the list, going down to less successful pilots.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Furio

This is a well-known fact. It should be considered that USAAF calculated the risk for a loss rate of around 5%, considering 10% a prohibitive limit, and the 25 missions mark was not easy to reach.
The only explanation I can think of is different duration of missions. Fortresses and Liberators flew for hours over enemy held territory, while a Stuka based near frontline could possibly complete a mission in a matter of minutes, facing, however, a much more dangerous anti-aircraft fire at low level.

I seriously doubt AAA fire at low level was more dangerous than what initially the level bombers faced. Targets were well defended by AA, and the straight and level flying masses of bombers made even the low hit probabilities of high alt FlaK a real serious threat. Anti tank planes usually do not hunt for tanks far behind the frontlines, most of the time when used against enemy advances there is not that much FlaK to be expected -on the march forward it is either too slow or lacks protection. And unlike Germany the Soviets were not too keen on FlaKpanzers, so I'd bet the biggest threat to a Stuka pilot was enemy fighters - which made it a pretty risky job - but maybe not on par with USAAF bombers crews.

Originally Posted by swiss

The USAAF had replacement pilots which put them in the comfortable position to come up with the tour of duty system.
The Germans on the other hand did not - their tour of duty was over with their death/capture.
Most Germans aces had flown a ridiculous amount of missions till they were shot down and killed.
Most German aces actually were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nd_attack_aces

Now I'm getting doubts, more missions than everyone else, okay. More victories, okay. But significantly more kills/mission than everyone else on top -and that by a large margin -around double. Either they let him have a lot of easy kills -or he made them easier.

[RPS69]

Rudell's claims could be easilly asumed as over the line.
But even on 10% they are impressive.

On the number of missions flown, you really got a spot when you differentiated the mission duration beteween the german and the allied sides.
There was an example of this on the osprey book about the Hs123.
Through the battle of France, they report this plane as being the first type to stop a tank charge using only air power.
There was a french column heading for the airbase where they were stationed, and they proceeded to harass and attack this column of french tanks until they retreated. I don't remember if there were any kind of tank losses there, but the point is that the planes landed and take off more than once in a single day. Something not unussual on the german side.
Why the French quited the attack, the book asumes it was because of the 123's. But only God knows what really happened over there.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Furio

There’s not any law requiring Rudel as the final outcome. In other words, it’s not like a National Lottery where, as thin as the winning chances are, a number is ultimately drawn. A war can be – and most probably is – fought without any single soldier reaching such mythical results.

Never said "require", just said allows. And how ever improbable it may be, not impossible.

Originally Posted by Furio

2.500 missions and 30 times shot down are the numbers declared by Rudel. To put it simply, I consider them unbelievable, period. Logbooks and documents are falsifiable for propaganda purpose.

In a state so focused to document everything correctly, even their own war crimes? And at least for missions flown, there would have been witnesses to every take-off and every landing. Not impossible to do, but I'd bet some witness would have come forward after the war and tried to debunk the myth then. The shotdowns should even today be verifyable by comparing documents.

Originally Posted by Furio

Here I disagree, and I think numbers disagree also. If we take for good Rudel’s victory tally, just 240 of Rudel-type men would have destroyed 124,560 tanks, more that the total built in Russia during the whole war. Now, let’s divide Rudel’s efficiency by a factor of ten, for a victory tally of 50 destroyed tanks each. Just 2.491 pilots would have been enough to obtain the same result. If we consider that Russian tanks faced also many other dangers, mainly German panzers, jagdpanzers and 88 mm. guns, a much lower kill number was needed to win the war. It’s just a guess, but 25,000 destroyed tanks could have been more than enough to change history. And to obtain that result just 500 pilots, each one with one tenth of Rudel’s victory tally, are needed.
Play a little with different numbers, if you like, but the picture doesn’t change that much and, Rudel apart, says something about anti-tank weapons efficiency.

You know i was deliberately overexaggerating, do you?

But let's just extend this a little further. It is just too much fun.
Ten thousand Rudels would not have been able to kill as many tanks each as Rudel did, even given no shortage on planes and fuel and so on.
Rudel was operating in a target rich environment - he usually should have found more targets than he was able to shoot at. But if there were more Rudels around it gets increasingly difficult to find targets to the point where more than one Rudel is hunting the last available enemy vehicle - and they need to find it first.
So 10000 Rudels may be able to largely kill any AFVs the Red Army could throw at the Germans - still the Wehrmacht needs to occupy Russia with lots of ground to cover and infantry, artillery, airforce still defending. Already overextended supply lines getting even more extended, making any partisan warfare more effective - impossible to occupy all of Russia in time. And after total occupation the war is not won, there are still enemies, one you just gave a big breathing space(Britain), and one who is still powering up, and by that time - maybe unknowingly - has degraded your ally Japan from a vital to a medium threat (Midway).
So i do think even with the help of ten thousand Rudels the Germans would not have been able to conquer Russia, Great Britain and North Africa in time to make it impossible for the US to get seriously involved in the ETO, which in the end should highly likely lead to defeat - even if it may prolong the war for a few years - in the end your leadership errors kill you -and attacking any and all powers around you except a few allies at the same time is even beyond dumb.

Originally Posted by Furio

30 times shot down. I know that Rudel was severely wounded and lost a leg, but just think a little at this number. Try to hit an airplane for 30 times with bullets and shells, always leaving the pilot alive. Pilots apart, for 30 times the plane receive fatal damage: one time the engine is stopped, another the fuel tank sets on fire or explode, control linkages are severed, wings or tail are shot away, and each time the pilot bail out or crashland successfully, and always comes out alive and is never captured.
There’s no need for statistical analysis here.

As I said he must have been one of the luckiest pilots in that war.

[gaunt1]

Soviet tank losses became completely unsustainable by the end of war. They were already running out of tanks in 1944-1945, despite the myths. Total losses are around 95.000 (a shocking number, but true), while total produced is around 110-120.000 That means, 20 Rudels would be enough in that hypothetical scenario...